As a long-time science policy activist and director of UCSD’s newly created Stem Cell Program, Dr. Larry Goldstein is well versed in the problems and stakes of the national debate over bioethics and stem cell research.
“They’re relevant issues — very relevant issues,” he said in his clean fourth-floor office in the Leichtag Family Foundation Biomedical Research Building, “and it’s very important medical research.”
Voters seemed to agree in November of 2004 when they voted on Proposition 71, which granted state funding for stem cell research to institutions across California. But, he adds, the issues of bioethics in this research will continue beyond the simple and controversial question of whether to sanction it at all — that battle itself is far more than two-sided. Congress banned the use of federal funding for experimentation on embryos in 1995, a restriction which continues to this day. Both sides of the debate have battled ever since on whether experimentation on cells already taken from embryos can be funded. President George W. Bush thought he had made a reasonable compromise in 2001, when he allowed the NIH to use funds for research on existing stem cell lines, but not for the creation of more. Yet neither side could be happy with the result, and the bitter fight that resulted has not yet abated. Instead, it has led to smaller efforts to fund the research, such as Proposition 71, and smaller firestorms of controversy.
“It was a statewide effort, and bipartisan, too,” Goldstein said of the campaign to pass Proposition 71. “But as they say, we only had to get 50 percent and one vote.” He credited attorney Robert Klein, statewide chair for the proposition, for much of this effort.
Stem cell research in general may not be new ground for him, but the funding granted by Proposition 71 allows him to finally begin work with human stem cells. His own position on the issue is obvious and a bit wry; the fundamental question, he said, is whether “a ball of cells” — a blastocyst — counts as a human being. Much of his work as co-chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee that lobbied for Proposition 71 argued that the ball does not. He is careful to note, though, that stem cell research had already been legalized in California before this vote, so in that regard it had not been an uphill battle.
Goldstein has been dedicated to human stem cell research since the late 1990s, when it first began to heat up as a political issue. He testified in the 1999 U.S. Senate subcommittee hearings on embryonic stem cell research, and gained notice by not only being a prominent scientist campaigning hard for a political cause, but also by being unapologetic about doing so. He’s worked with science policy organizations, such as the American Society of Cell Biology, and spent more time in Washington than he cares to add up; he also performed research at UCSD on the nervous systems of mice using the animals’ stem cells. But despite his research responsibilities, Goldstein insists that activism on the part of scientists is imperative, because advocacy by active members in the field can not only go a long way toward counteracting the myths that sometimes enter the debate, but remind participants that the researchers themselves are citizens with strong opinions on what is right and wrong in their fields.
Despite his passion for the field and the years he’s devoted to it, he is respectful when he speaks of his opposition and is careful not to paint them with too broad a brush. He said that the controversy over stem cells is not just another dimension of the abortion debate, which he also took care not to simplify.
“If you go from fertilization to birth there’s a massive gray area, Goldstein said. “Everyone falls differently along that scale.”
Along that scale are many who consider themselves pro-life, including Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). Similarly, there are those who have opposed the research and Proposition 71 for different reasons, including fiscal concerns.
It’s not a simple division between religious and nonreligious groups; while Goldstein admits that many of those who condemn the practice are members of “the conservative wings of Christianity,” there are still many who differ. “Many good, practicing Catholics disagree with the official stance of the Catholic church on this,” Goldstein said.
The issue is different across the United States, too, and each state has its own complexities. So far in California, the public seems to be satisfied with their reasons, as the proposition passed with a notable majority.
California has not only proven to be amenable politically to Goldstein’s research, but also has a scientific community that is well suited to his ideas and work. He obtained his bachelor’s degree in biology from UCSD, with a concentration in genetics, but for years his other work was done out of the state. He studied for his doctorate at the University of Washington in Seattle, and did postdoctoral work at the University of Colorado and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He also served on the faculty of Harvard University for 10 years. Although those are impressive credentials, he still finds himself happiest working at UCSD. California, he says, has a much more “freewheeling” scientific community compared to formal East Coast universities, and he considers UCSD to be of equal academic caliber to Harvard. Most importantly, UCSD and other California universities are more open to interdisciplinary studies as a practice, which Goldstein said is crucial. Some of the most groundbreaking discoveries are made at the junctions between fields, he asserted.
Most of his work at UCSD and other universities has been research. While he still teaches graduate and medical students sometimes, and has taught undergraduate courses in the past, he prefers to focus on research, where he is certain he is more useful. He looks forward to teaching a group of 15 to 16 trainees for UCSD’s Stem Cell Program, since he finds small classes to be a more productive application of his teaching skills than larger lectures.
Goldstein’s enthusiasm about the program and the advances to medical science that may be made through human stem cell research is boundless. However, the ethical dilemmas caused by it are far from over. One issue that will almost certainly surface is the first experimental treatments tested on human subjects. Stem cell researchers will face these and other dilemmas with which the entire field of health care and medical science regularly deal. These are perhaps even more important questions, says Goldstein, than the conflict over the possible humanity of a blastocyst.
Through his extensive career in the field, Goldstein has faced quite a few forms of opposition, including the personal opinions of many. But his genuine passion for the field is unshakeable, and his view of detractors of human stem cell research remains respectful.
“Someone might disagree,” Goldstein said. “It doesn’t make them a bad person.”
